Bombay High Court
Shri Prakash S/O Pandurang Ghate vs Stae Of Maharashtra Through ... on 7 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 J-WP-3573-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3573 of 2013
Shri Prakash s/o Pandurang Ghate,
Age about : 56 years, occ. Assistant
Manager, FDCM Ltd., R/o S-2, Uma
Apartments Near St. Michael School
Ramnagar, Chandrapur - 442401. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary Ministry of Revenue
and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Forest Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Limited through its
Managing Director Rawel Plaza, Kadbi
Chowk, Kamptee Road,
Nagpur 440004.
3. S. B. Chauhan,
Divisional Manager,
Forest Development Corporation of
Maharashtra Limited, Kopari Colony,
Thane (West).
4. Shri U. M. Dhopeshwarkar,
Divisional Manager, 1, Project
Division Kinwat, Distt. Nanded.
5. Shri S. A. Mahadule,
Divisional Manager (Retd)
House No. 18, Rani Indirabai
Bhosale Vihar Tulsi Bag Mahal,
Nagpur - 440 032.
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2017 00:23:11 :::
2 J-WP-3573-13.odt
6. Shri R. D. Masirkar,
Divisional Manager, 1, Project
Division, Bhandara. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. M. Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. I. J. Damle, AGP for the respondent No.1.
Mr. G. G. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
07/06/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the panel
of selected candidates, prepared by respondent Departmental
Promotion Committee for the post of Divisional Manager of the
respondent - Forest Development Corporation.
The petitioner was appointed as Range Forest
Officer by the respondent - Corporation on 21/10/1980. The
petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager and was
considered for promotion to the post of Divisional Manager of the
Corporation along with the other eligible employees. According to
the petitioner, the ACRs of the petitioner were good inasmuch as
the petitioner had secured A + remark in the ACR for the year
3 J-WP-3573-13.odt
2007-2008 and 2008-2009 and B + remark for the years 2009-
2010 and 2010-2011. According to the petitioner, though these
remarks were communicated to the petitioner, the remark for the
5th year i.e. 2011-2012 was not communicated to him. It is stated
that if the petitioner would have been granted an opportunity of
making a representation against remark B in the ACR of 2011-
2012, the remark could have been expunged and he would have
got an opportunity to secure remark A +. It is submitted that by
relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Dev Dutt Vrs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2008
Supreme Court 2513, it would be necessary for an employer to
communicate the grading, whatever it be, very good, average or
poor to the employee. It is submitted that it was necessary for the
corporation to have communicated the remark for the year 2011-
2012 to the petitioner and to have granted an opportunity to him
to make a representation against the said remark. It is submitted
that had the remark for the year 2011-2012 being converted to the
remark of 'very good', the petitioner could have been promoted.
The learned counsel for the Corporation opposed
the prayer made in the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner
4 J-WP-3573-13.odt
was considered for promotion along with others and even if it is
assumed that the petitioner had secured remark A + for the year
2011-2012, still the petitioner could not have been promoted to
the post of Divisional Manager. It is submitted that the DPC
comprising of 5 members had decided to consider the confidential
reports of three preceding years. It is submitted that the
confidential remarks of the employees for the years 2009-2010,
2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were considered. It is stated that the
petitioner had received B + remark for 2 years and B remark for
the 3rd year. It is stated that even if the petitioner had secured A +
remark for the year 2011-2012, the petitioner would not have got
average A + remark. It is submitted that the other selected
candidates had secured average A + remark and therefore their
names were rightly placed in the panel of selected candidates.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
on a perusal of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Departmental
Promotion Committee, it appears that there is no merit in the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner for seeking the relief
claimed. The DPC had decided to consider the remarks of three
previous years while promoting the employees from the post of
5 J-WP-3573-13.odt
Assistant Manager to the post of Divisional Manager of the
Corporation. The candidates that were selected by the DPC had an
average A + remark. The petitioner admittedly had secured B +
remark for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Those remarks
were admittedly communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner
secured 'B' remark for the year 2011-2012 and the said remark
was not communicated to the petitioner. Even assuming that the
petitioner had secured A + remark for the year 2011-2012, still
the average remark would not be A + as the petitioner had
secured B + remark for two earlier years. Since the selected
candidates had secured average A + remark and their confidential
reports were far superior to the report of the petitioner, as it
appears from the Minutes of the Meeting of the DPC, they were
rightly selected for promotion. Even if Judgment reported in the
case of Devdatta (supra) is applied to the case, the petitioner
would not have a better claim than the selected candidates.
In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is
dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
